Numbers are a curious thing.
When the US Supreme Court last week handed down its 5-4 decision permitting corporations to exercise their free speech rights during elections, the hue and cry could be heard throughout the land: "Democracy is dead!" In fact, the lamentations were so passionate and sweeping one expected to see wailing and gnashing of teeth in every public square. However, what one hardly ever heard from the court's critics and the many prognosticators of doom is that the court's decision did two things, and not just one: A) It permitted all corporations full democratic participation, and not just SOME, as the status quo had permitted; B) It permitted UNIONS full democratic participation. Seriously, every person I heard complain about the court's decision never mentioned unions, or that some corporations were exempt from the law's restrictions, the law the Supreme Court essentially emended. Critics and decriers merely griped about faceless, nameless bogeymen -- business corporations.
Here's something you will find utterly amazing:
According to campaign finance data, businesses spent $1.96 billion in the 2007-2008 cycle, while labor and other interest groups spent $673.47 million.
Well, that's not all that amazing, is it? Maybe it will be after you read this:
However, while corporations far outspent unions and other interest groups in the last cycle, that spending, historically, has not benefited one party over the other.
Since 1990, corporations have divided their contributions nearly equally -- 49.4 percent toward Democrats and 50.6 percent toward Republicans.
Union political spending is not so balanced. In the same period, labor unions gave 92 percent of donations to Democrats, while just 8 percent went to Republicans.
So, then, let us do the math for the 2007-08 election cycle, admittedly based on loose percentages taken from the last 20 years of campaign contributions. No, never mind. Why bother? All it will likely show us (though not necessarily) is that BIG NASTY BUSINESS and UNIONS contributed more to Democrats than they contributed to Republicans.
I think the big news here, really, is that very little will actually change as a result of the Supreme Court's decision.
By the way, I am not convinced the decision handed down by the Supreme Court is all that good.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
1 comment:
What is truly backwards here is the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" at the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Constitution, and yet the media was silent about the bribery taking place in the US Senate using our taxes. When Mary Landrieu held out on the health reform vote, she was granted $100 million as a provision in the bill. (http://goo.gl/3SLY) So the government can take money from those of us in the 49 other states and give it to Louisana to buy a vote, but it's just wrong for a company to make unrestrained political investments on behalf of their employees?
Post a Comment